Public Bill Committee

[Mr. Christopher Chope in the Chair]

Christopher Chope: Good morning. In the room there are hard copies of some background papers, which were initially only circulated by e-mail.

Clause 1

Flood and coastal erosion

Anne McIntosh: I beg to move amendment 131, in clause 1, page 1, line 5, leave out lines 5 and 6 and insert
(1) Flood includes
(a) any case where land not normally covered by water becomes covered by water, or
(b) any case where water has rested just below the surface..

Christopher Chope: With this it will be convenient to discuss the following: amendment 82, in clause 1, page 1, line 12, after waters,, insert
(da) groundwater.

Adds groundwater specifically into key concept of flooding, makes it consistent with local provisions and beyond doubt in national ones.
Amendment 83, in clause 1, page 1, line 12, after waters,, insert
(da) surface water flooding from whatever original source,
Amendment 84, in clause 1, page 1, line 14, leave out subsection (3).

Anne McIntosh: I welcome everyone to the formal sittings. I am delighted that we are under way and I am sure we shall be able to make brisk progress.
The Minister and the Committee will be aware that there are already several definitions of floodpluvial, fluvial, surface water flooding and below-surface water flooding.

David Drew: On a point of order, Mr. Chope. It is difficult to hear and I assume the people at the far end of the room will not be able to hear a thing. We could all move down.

Christopher Chope: We shall have the fan eliminated, so that people can hear. Miss McIntosh, please speak up in the meantime.

Anne McIntosh: I shall speak more slowly, to make the time pass.

David Drew: We are getting very old.

Anne McIntosh: I could not possibly comment on the hon. Gentlemans intervention.
I am delighted to be moving amendment 131. The Minister and the Committee are aware of several definitions of flooding. The purpose behind the amendment is simply to convince them that the definition in the Bill is defective. The definition of flood in subsection (1) only relates to
any case where land not normally covered by water becomes covered by water.
I would love to know the background to that definition, which the Minister might like to share. It is completely innocuous as it stands, but it does not go far enough. I hope the Minister and the Committee will look favourably on what we would like to do, which is to expand the definition to cover, in addition,
any case where water has rested just below the surface.
The reason for that emerged from the evidence session last Thursday, when we heard that damage to property begins at 300 mm below ground levelthat was established in 1977and that soil structure is affected by waterlogging, which can have adverse impacts on foundations of infrastructure, most notably road and rail infrastructure but also property infrastructure. I would like to return to property infrastructure separately. Vegetation and crops cannot survive in conditions in which high ground water levels persistwhich is 500 mm below the surface, as established in 1992. By omitting to include the below-surface level and failing to acknowledge that flooding begins before water reaches ground level, a considerable risk could be placed on infrastructure across England and Wales as well as the damage to property, whether homes or land.
One of the Governments own top scientists has said that the biggest challenge we face is climate change, while another said that the biggest challenge is food securityI forget which was the Departments and which the general Government chief scientist. On both issues, clause 1 serves a useful purpose by improving climate change and increasing food security. The omission of our amendments would prevent the relevant authorities from even considering sub-surface flooding when weighing up the costs and benefits of flood-alleviation schemes, projects and action. In many instances, that may make the difference between a favourable cost-benefit assessment and failure, resulting in many potentially essentially schemes being sidelined. Are the Committee and the Minister agreeable to considering our definition as presented in amendment 131:
any case where water has rested just below the surface?
In any event, will the Minister concede that floods should be redefined to include waterlogging or saturation of soils within 500 mm of ground level?
I have related most of my remarks to infrastructure such as roads and railways, but I hope that the Minister will concede that secondary flooding is a serious issue. That is particularly the case in Hull. I visited Hull and saw that for myself. I gather that in other casesI cannot remember whether in Plymouth or Portsmouthsecondary flooding is horrendous and poses all sorts of problems for the houses affected, and for clean-up and insurers. It can come back months after the initial flood. Our purpose in drafting the amendment to broaden the definition is to recognise flood scenarios that can create real damage to property, infrastructure, vegetationfarmers cannot recover the costs of damaged cropsand, most importantly, to the numerous poor households that are subject to secondary flooding. I hope that the Minister and the Committee will consider our amendment favourably.

Christopher Chope: We have had a request to have the air-conditioning turned down or switched off. That request has now been referred to something rather Orwellian called central control, and we hope that central control will respond quickly.

Martin Horwood: It is a delight to serve under your chairmanship, Mr. Chope. I wish you well in your battle with central control throughout the proceedings.
We have waited a long time to get to this stage and I am pleased that we are finally here. There is much to welcome in the Bill, and it is very welcome that we have the Bill at all. There is still much to debate, but I put on record my appreciation of the open way in which the Minister and his team have approached discussions.
In clause 1, we perhaps confirm some peoples worst fears about politicians, because we have the opportunity to debate what a flood is for some time. Someone who cannot recognise one has certainly not lived in Cheltenham. Subsection (2) is comprehensive, but there are a couple of issues in the clause that I think we are going to address in the amendments. One, an almost philosophical issue, is the definition in subsection (1):
land not normally covered by water.
That perhaps implies that floods are unnatural events, that flooding is bizarre and strange, whereas flooding is part of the natural process of rainfall and tides, and part of the natural scheme of things. Underlying some of the difficulties in the Bill is an attempt to get towards processes that work with nature rather than against it, and that work with natural landscapes and natural landscape features. Perhaps that definition reveals an underlying philosophy that a flood is not natural but something against which artificial defences need to be erected. It will perhaps be more helpful as we go through the Bill to look for opportunities to work with nature and the landscape wherever possible. Ah, peace and quiet at last; the air-conditioning has been turned off.
We then have the different forms of flooding and, as I pointed out on Second Reading, when the water is flowing down your high street it is rather difficult to tell which type of water it is and to whom it belongs. I shall illustrate one problem with the definitions of water by quoting a couple of examples given to me by the National Flood Forum:
A disabled women of 89 rang the office to say her neighbour had changed the contour of his drive and as a consequence every time it rained the run-off from his drive flooded her home. She went round to complain, he was very abusive and refused to do anything about the situation. The lady rang both the
Environment Agency and the local authority,
only to be told it was
not their kind of flooding
and there was nothing they could do to help her. Her only form of redress would be to take the very costly legal route.
In another example,
A mill owner in south Yorkshire tarmaced a staff car park and after that every time it rained the water ran down the hill side flooding a line of terraced houses. They too complained to the mill owner and got the same reaction as above from him and the
Environment Agency and the local authority. That tangle of responsibilities and the inability to work out who is responsible for what led Sir Michael Pitt to ask for the clear oversight rolethe buck-stops-here rolefor the Environment Agency that all of us support. I am slightly worried because we are not sure that, in all cases, the Bill delivers that. It is important that we address not only amendment 131, but amendments 82 to 84.
Amendment 131 deals with the specific concern of the Association of Drainage Authorities, which has rightly said that damage starts below ground level. I am not sure that we need the specific amendment that we are discussing, because there is a definition of ground water at clause 6(4), which says:
Groundwater means all water which is below the surface of the ground and in direct contact with the ground or subsoil.
I should think that that definitionif we can make it explicit in the definition of a floodcovers the concerns of the hon. Member for Vale of York. However, I am sympathetic to her amendment and would happily support it, for the avoidance of all doubt.
Our amendments 82 to 84 would put a few specific definitions of flooding beyond doubt and within the scope of the Bill. The first definition that we are concerned with is groundwater, in a sense making our objective the same as the one behind amendment 131. The specifics that we deal with reflect the reality that many of my constituents in Cheltenham faced when they were flooded. For example, an area called Little Bayshill terrace in Cheltenham is virtually surrounded by the River Chelt, which goes round two sides of that road. That little cul-de-sac ends in a fairly comprehensive wall that is designed to stop the water coming in and flood defences were installed at the entrances to that area, with sandbags also put in place in the event of June and July floods. But it was all as nought, because in many cases the flood water simply came up through their floorboards. That kind of ground water flooding was just as distressing and, in a sense, more frustrating because the people there had put so much effort into stopping water coming in by other means.
We need to be specific. In respect of the overall definition of flooding and the responsibilities for flooding that we are passing to the Environment Agency

David Drew: The hon. Gentleman will know that the problems with both Mythe and Castle Mead pumping stations were from water coming from below. All the erroneous media reports about the water being about to overwash the barriers were unhelpful, because it was about trying to stop the water coming through from the ground. I sure that he knows about that.

Martin Horwood: My neighbour the hon. Member for Stroud makes an important point. He is right about the Mythe water pumping station. For all the media attention on the flood defences that were being put round the outside, when people spoke about Mythe[Interruption.] I am sorry; I am confusing that with Walham electricity substation, which people talked about being a few inches from being flooded, although it was water inside the perimeter rising up at ground level and threatening to damage the machinery that was the problem.

Roger Williams: My hon. Friend makes a powerful case for amending the definition. In support of his contention, may I reflect upon my constituency office? It is called Watergate, which should have given us some indication that we might have problems before we took the lease. Flood defence has done much to counteract the fluvial flooding, but we still have flooding from ground water that comes up in the basement. My hon. Friend makes an important point.

Martin Horwood: Yes. Watergate is not necessarily a politically suitable title for an office; I am surprised that my hon. Friend has not changed it.
Amendment 83 would deal with a similar issue in respect of surface water flooding and reflects an underlying concern identified by the National Flood Forum. It says:
We feel that the Draft...Bill does not go far enough in meeting the needs of the vulnerable and those in the flood prone communities. We are concerned that the vital area of surface water flooding is to be left to Local Authorities to deal with, under the auspices of the EA
the Environment Agency. It goes on to point out the possible practical difficulties. We will come back to that theme in later clauses and amendments, and the question whether there should be a horizontal or vertical division of responsibilities between the Environment Agency and local authorities.
This seems to be a good opportunity to point out that surface water is a key element of flood responsibility and that we should get the definition right at the start. For the avoidance of doubt, we should also add ground water, surface water and, if necessary, the Association of Drainage Authorities definition of water below the surface.
Amendment 84 addresses a slightly different matterthe two exemptions in the clause. First, it exempts
a flood from any part of a sewerage system, unless wholly or partly caused by an increase in the volume of rainwater
luckily including snow
entering or otherwise affecting the system.
Secondly, it exempts
a flood caused by a burst water main.
It is obviously most distressing if floodwater enters the sewerage system, because foul water contaminates peoples houses even more than normal floodwater. It seems a slightly clumsy approach. Will the Minister explain why the Government introduced the exemption only to qualify it? What breaches from sewerage systems does he imagine are not caused by rainwater? Rather strangely, subsection (3)(b), which is about burst water mains, includes no such qualification. A burst water main that is
caused by an increase in the volume of rainwater...entering or otherwise affecting the system
seems to be exempted. That, surely, must be wrong.
The flooding that one sees on the A46 on the Shurdington road in Cheltenham, where the water main seems to burst every time there is the least amount of flooding, let alone the one in a century floods that we suffered in 2007, will all be part and parcel of the same flood events. It seems strange that the floods mentioned in paragraph (b) have no qualification comparable to that in paragraph (a). Why is that?
In practice, we are talking about flooding in total. We are talking about flooding that is sometimes exacerbated by the failure of structures and physical systems such as sewers and water mains. It should all be included in the definition of flooding and come under the overarching responsibility of the Environment Agency. I see no good reason for such exemptions. If there is a reason, I am sure that the Minister will explain it.

Laurence Robertson: I welcome you to the Chair, Mr. Chope. It is a pleasure to follow my neighbour, the hon. Member for Cheltenham, who made some good points, as did my hon. Friend the Member for Vale of York in moving amendment 131.
I wish to pick up on something the hon. Member for Cheltenham said. He asked whether it was absolutely necessary to make such an amendment, given that clause 6 defines ground water as
all water which is below the surface of the ground.
I believe that the amendment is necessary because, although the Government seek in clause 1 to define the meaning of flood, no mention is made of water under the surface. Clause 1(1) attempts to define a flood, and we need to amend it in order to avoid doubt.
My hon. Friend the Member for Vale of York made a good point about water resting below the surface. Recently, a contentious planning application of quite large scale was made in my constituency in Longford, an area with which the hon. Members for Cheltenham and indeed for Stroud will be familiar. The area floodsthere is no doubt about that, as anyone who lives or travels near there knowsbut the contention was about whether it flooded. In part of the area water rests on the surface although, even so, some peopleusually supporters of the developerscontended about whether it flooded; in another area the water rests below the surface.
The Environment Agency, when assessing that particular planning application, said at a public meeting that, if the water was resting below the surface, an area was not considered to be a flood-risk area. That troubled me. Anyone who lives near that area and anyone who was flooded in 2007, without any development on the land, would view that opinion with worry. They would be extremely concerned about houses being built on that land. Yet, because the water was slightly below the surface, it seemingly did not constitute a flood risk in the eyes of the Environment Agency and the appeal to build on the land was granted. People who live close by will be very worried indeedsome were flooded and could not get back into their houses for more than a year because of the floods. They were living adjacent to the land; the flooding for them is going to be far worse. It is very important that we add the amendment to clause 1 because if water is resting slightly below the surface, it is only a few millimetres different from resting on the surface, which surely constitutes flooding or flood risk.
The hon. Member for Cheltenham also made a good point about land that normally floods. Separately, the hon. Member for Stroud introduced the problem that we had at the Mythe water treatment works in 2007Mythe is in my constituency, close to where I live in Tewkesbury. The fields around the Mythe flood several times a year. They do not necessarily flood at the Mythe water treatment worksthat has only happened on the one occasion so farbut the fields do flood regularly. They are flooded now, and three, four or five times a year, because they are very close to the river and the water table is high in that area. Without wishing to be pedantic, does the Minister consider that to be flood? The area floods so often, but how often is normal in that respect? I do not mean to be awkward, but would that land be deemed flooded if it floods so many times a year? Water is obviously not intended to rest on the land, but because it does so often, would that be considered a flood?
It is particularly important that we define flooding in rather more detail than clause 1 does at present, so I support my hon. Friend the Member for Vale of York on including water resting below the surface. She went into agricultural purposes, but I am afraid that I have not researched the matter in that detail and do not profess to understand too much about agriculture. However, the amendment is important to the clause for the purpose of house building. I hope to return to the theme later this morning, but we are going to have a regional spatial strategyit is not quite finalised yetthat proposes to build something like 14,500 houses in my constituency, in what is obviously a flood-risk area. The hon. Member for Cheltenham asked whether we really need to define what flooding isif we see a flood, we know it is a floodbut apparently we do for the purposes of legislation. The threat hanging over us is the building of so many houses in a flood-risk area. The increase in the number of houses is massive, something like a 40 per cent. increase on what we already have in the constituency over the next 16 years.
When we have such a threat hanging over us, it is important that we define in legislation exactly what a flood is. My hon. Friends amendment will help us to do that somewhat more accurately.

Huw Irranca-Davies: I welcome the spirit in which everyone has entered the debate in Committee and on Second Reading. I was not at Second Reading, because I was away in Brussels unfortunately, fighting the good fight at the Agriculture and Fisheries Council, but I am glad to be here now.
Looking at the definitions in clause 1 is a good starting point because, as the hon. Member for Cheltenham rightly said, most people recognise a flood when it is heading towards them, whether it is coming up through the basement or down the street. It is important, however, that we have clarity here, and I think that I can give that. I very much welcome the nature of the discussion so far, because it is important to try to bolt down what is and is not covered, and why it is defined as it is. I hope that I will be able to give the assurances that Members want about why we have addressed the issue in this way.
Amendment 131 would expand the definition of flooding to include areas with water just below the surface. I listened with interest to the hon. Member for Vale of York. The amendment could extend the scope of the Bill considerably, so that areas with a high water table, as opposed to areas that are being flooded, would be considered to be flooded, even though that might be the normal state of affairs. That is an important area for definition. We do not want to automatically say that every area that has a high water table is flooded.
Let me expand a little. It is important to distinguish between high ground water levels, which occur in many areas, and floods. Many Members here represent constituents who have high ground water levels as a matter of course, but they are not floods as we would normally know them. We recognise that flooding may also occur as a result of high ground water levels, or have been contributed to by them. The definition of flood in clause 1 is deliberately inclusive rather than exhaustive in that regard. Subsection (1) states:
Flood includes any case where land not normally covered by water becomes covered by water.
Subsection (2) continues:
It does not matter for the purpose of subsection (1) whether a flood is caused by
(a) heavy rainfall,
(b) a river overflowing or its banks being breached,
(c) a dam overflowing or being breached,
(d) tidal waters, or
(e) any other event
and importantly
(or combination of events).

Andrew Turner: On that point, does the Minister recognise that land being covered for a period each day would probably be too frequent an occurrence for the definition? I am thinking of tidal water. However, if that happened once a month or so, it would be a less than normal, but regular occurrence. In some cases it would happen less frequently than a regular tide, but sufficiently frequently for it to be noticeable.

Huw Irranca-Davies: I want to studiously avoid the necessity to define regularity or infrequency of flooding in the Bill, and I hope that the hon. Gentleman will understand why. We have water-meadows that flood frequently as part of natural processes, and within local areas it is recognised that they do that. In other areas, there might be seasonal flooding. Twice a year the Burry estuary in south Walesmy own areahas high river tides, and if they correspond with high spring and neap tides we have flooding. The Welsh salt-marsh lamb that is produced on the marshes there is a benefit of that wonderful pastureland, which floods not only fairly regularly, but twice a year at a high level.
Let me explain where the definition comes from. It is important to say that it is inclusive rather than exhaustive. We do not want to get into the business of trying to define exactly what we mean by normal or regular and so on, because this is where the work on the ground goes on and where the national strategy link to the local implementation of plans matters. The definition is consistent with EU directive 2007/60/EC on the assessment and management of flood risks, and with existing practice. I remind Members what the definition in that directive is:
flood means the temporary covering by water of land not normally covered by water. This shall include floods from rivers, mountain torrents, Mediterranean ephemeral water courses,
I appreciate that we do not have many of those in this country
and floods from the sea in coastal areas, and may exclude floods from sewerage systems.
Let me go on, because it is helpful to explain this in the round. It is recognised that relevant authorities may also need to manage water below ground for agricultural or environmental purposes, as Committee members have said. Drainage for agricultural and other reasons is covered already by the Land Drainage Act 1991 and will be permitted for environmental reasons by the environmental clauses 38 and 39.
I have mentioned that the definition we are talking about is inclusive. Putting it in straight terms, it does not exclude water below ground level. Anything within that definition that contributes to a flood event is included in it, including ground water. Damage to property, which we will discuss in respect of infrastructure and so on, begins at 300 mm below floor level, not at ground water level. Just to reassure the hon. Member for Vale of York, secondary flooding is covered in the definition, as are any other aspects of flooding in that definition.

Laurence Robertson: If it is included, it seems sensible to put it in the Bill.
A few moments ago, the Minister mentioned, or questioned, our having a high water table in Tewkesbury, for example, where the Severn and the Avon meet, although I do not think he was suggesting that because it floods regularly it should not be considered a flood.

Huw Irranca-Davies: No.

Laurence Robertson: Would he accept that that is flooding?

Huw Irranca-Davies: The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right. In the context of the explanation that I have just given and the definitions that I have mentioned, and my remarks at this point, it is clear that what we mean by flooding is anything that contributes to a flooding event, whether that is ground water or another eventuality. I will come to the sewerage issue in a moment, because that is important in respect of the hon. Member for Cheltenhams asking why we have excluded that and brought it back in as part of the Billbecause it ties into the definition.

Anne McIntosh: I think that there is confusion in respect of land not normally covered by water, and the Minister is persisting with that in his response. I am not talking about ground water, although I take the point made about it. There is a discrepancy between the 300 mm that will result in damage to property and the 500 mm, which will result in damage to vegetation. That is why we have come up with the formula to recognise the fact that it is not just about what is covering the landthat is where the definition is defectivebut about what is below land as well. The Minister is not addressing that point in his remarks.

Huw Irranca-Davies: I think I understand what the hon. Lady is saying. I will return to the point about the detail in respect of the 300 mm and the 500 mm, but it is important to put that in context of the definition of flooding being inclusive, so any aspect in terms of this definition would be covered.
Martin Horwoodrose

Huw Irranca-Davies: I turn now to the hon. Gentlemans points, because doing so might address some of the issues that he mentioned. Then I will be happy to take an intervention.
The hon. Gentleman mentioned what a flood is and how we would recognise it if it was coming towards us, and the aspect of what is not normally covered by water. Just to clarify that, it does not have to be rare or a freak event. We are certainly seeing such events more frequently now and we recognise that they are naturally occurring events that are happening more often. We will return to the matter of working with nature, as the hon. Gentleman commented earlier, on discussions of subsequent amendments, because we want that to happen in all aspects of the Bill.
The question of whose flood water it isas asked by somebody who faces a flood incidentis the focus of the Bill. Let me turn to the detail of amendments 82 to 84, tabled by the hon. Members for Cheltenham and for Brecon and Radnorshire, which would amend the definition of flooding to include ground water and surface water from any source, as well as removing the exclusions for flooding from sewers not caused by rainwater and burst water mains.
The exclusions included for sewer flooding not caused by rainfall and burst water mains are there because those things are covered by existing legislation, principally sections 37 and 94 of the Water Industry Act 1991, and are best managed independently of other flood risks, since they relate only to the water and sewerage networks. That needs to be put in the context of what I said previouslyI will return to it in a momentwhich is that any flooding event with a contributing factor comes into it. I will explain why the exemptions issue raised by the hon. Member for Cheltenham is important.

Anne McIntosh: Will the Minister give way?

Huw Irranca-Davies: Let me finish the point. To include those sources of flooding within the definition of flooding in the Bill would involve unnecessarily a much wider range of authorities in these matters and could impose significant burdens.

Anne McIntosh: I have some sympathy with the concern that the hon. Member for Cheltenham has about flooding from sewerage being excluded. Pitt made it clear that this was to be a unifying Act, bringing together all the legislation. The Committee is united in that ambition. If we are amending other aspects of the Acts that have been referred to, why cannot we bring those Acts into this legislation? I think all Committee members would agree on that. It would then be much simpler for anybody inside or outside this House to understand what flood means. If a house is inundated with sewage, it causes a lot more damage, there are public health consequences and it takes longer before people can return to their home.

Huw Irranca-Davies: I give way to the hon. Member for Cheltenham.

Martin Horwood: I think it might be logical for me to speak at this point. There seem to be two logical problems with what the Minister is saying. It is not clear what he is saying about ground water. He may be saying that ground water becomes a flood only when it reaches the surface and covers land, even if it has originated from underneath, but that seems to contradict definitions later in the Bill. The definition in clause 6(4) is:
Groundwater means all water which is below the surface of the ground and in direct contact with the ground or subsoil.
In clause 10(2), ground waterthat is water below the surface, as defined in clause 6
is one of the flood risks that must be included in local flood risk management strategies. By a process of elimination, that means that we must have ground water causing flood risk from below the surface. There is clearly enough confusion about this for us to want to clarify it with amendment 131 or amendment 82. It already appears to be an area that lawyers will try to decide on subsequently. They will pore through the Ministers remarks in this Committee as evidence of what the Bill means. It would be much simpler to accept one of the amendments.

Christopher Chope: That is an extremely long intervention already.

Huw Irranca-Davies: On the back of those two interventions, I will reply to the hon. Member for Vale of York first. The Pitt recommendations were clear. He requested a unified law on floods, not on all water matters. The Bill therefore does not deliver unified legislation on all water matters, but it does on floods. We have made it clear that we want to see consolidation following from the Bill. This is a short-Session Bill and it is not possible to deal with all matters now. We have the capacity to manage the water and sewer works separately, but within the Bill, water companies are one of the risk management authorities. They therefore have to have regard to the planning of risk management for flooding in their area and to do with their assets.

Martin Horwood: Will the Minister briefly give way?

Huw Irranca-Davies: I have not yet responded to the hon. Gentlemans original points. Perhaps he would like to intervene when I have done so.
On exemptions, we exclude sewers in so far as they cause floods by collapsing or being blocked because such eventualities are catered for in other legislation. We add sewers back because we want the legislation to include them if the flood is not because of a failure of infrastructure, but because rainwater has overwhelmed a sewer. That is the rationale behind the definitions for sewer and ground water. Pitt was clear that anything within the definition of flooding should be included; that includes ground water. I hear the hon. Gentlemans point about ground water, but I have made it clear that ground water is a source of flooding when it rises above the ground and causes and contributes to a flooding incident. It needs managing, and that is catered for in clause 10.

Martin Horwood: That is absolutely not the definition in clause 6(4), which states:
Groundwater means all water which is below the surface of the ground.
We are talking not about ground water that has risen above surface level, but about ground water still below the surface of the ground. Surely that must be included, and that is the very reason for us tabling the amendments.

Huw Irranca-Davies: We may be dancing on the head of a pin, in the sense that that definition is, as I said in my opening remarks, inclusive. Where ground water contributes to flooding, or where a sewerage incident contributes to flooding, with the horrendous situation of sewage coming into someones house after a flooding incident, those aspects are covered. The hon. Gentleman wants to specify ground water within that. I am sympathetic to what he is saying, but it is not actually necessary. Even though I am tempted, as a legislator, always to bolt everything we can into Bills, it is not actually necessary in this case.
I want to address the point raised by the hon. Member for Vale of York about the difference between the 300 mm and 500 mm and how that relates to damage to property and crops. The 300 mm, as she knows, relates to ground level for damage to property, and the 500 mm relates to below ground for damage to crops. Different assets, by their very nature, will be affected by water at different depths. It is not possible to set a specific, universal threshold for all damage, which could be considered as part of the current definition. There are, as she has said, different levels for different assets.
On a technical point made by the hon. Member for Cheltenham, the definition of flood clarifies that the various causes of flood listed are covered. I heard what he said about the ground water in clause 6, but I think my remarks make it clear that, in clause 1, anything that contributes to that flooding event is covered. The amendment that would add to the list source of flood is unnecessary, as flood retains its natural meaning in the definition as drafted. A flood is a flood, whatever its source may be. I could not be clearer on that. I mentioned which floods are not caused by rainfall, and that could be the collapse of a sewer, for example. If that contributes to an overall flooding event, however, it is within the definition of the Bill.

Martin Horwood: In that case, I press the Minister for an absolutely definitive replyyes or noto the following question: is ground water below the surface of the ground, as in clause 6 and amendment 131, included in the definition of a flood or not?

Huw Irranca-Davies: Yes; I can absolutely give the clarity that ground water, when it is in situation, is by necessity as defined in clause 6. Where that contributes to a flooding incident, as defined in clause 1, it is clearly a factor to be taken into account, so it is quite clear that ground water is indeed part of the definition where it contributes to a flood event that includes any case where land not normally covered by water becomes covered by water, as set out in the subsequent subsections in clause 1.

Anne McIntosh: I am trying to help the Minister, because I am not talking about ground water. I am talking about the Bill encompassing within the definition waterlogging or saturation of soils. Around 65 per cent. of the Vale of York probably falls within the definition that he so eloquently put in his initial response, but with respect to the hon. Member for Cheltenham, that is not the point I am raising. I am raising the fact that the present definition is defective because I would wish it to cover waterlogging or saturation of soils within 500 mm of ground level. So, I am trying to help him.

Huw Irranca-Davies: In my introductory remarks, I made it clear that amendment 131 would have the result of expanding the definition of flooding to include areas with water below the surface, as the hon. Lady has just remarked. However, the amendment could actually have the result of extending the Bill quite considerably, so that areas with a high water table would be considered to be flooded. It cannot simply relate to a high water table as opposed to where a high water table contributes to an event of flooding, which is where this definition is focused. Those are two quite different approaches. Pitts recommendations were clear in focusing on flooding as opposed to all water management, which is what this definition tries to deal with.
I now turn to the amendments suggested by the hon. Member for Cheltenham. I hear what he is saying, but I would be reluctant to add something to the Bill that I do not think needs to be in there, because the definition does, indeed, encompass the matter. Let me take the proposal away, have a look at it and see whether it would do any harm to the Billto be honest, I do not think it would do harm, but I do not think it needs to be in the legislation. Let me take the matter away, consider it and see what I can bring back subsequently, because I think we are arguing for exactly the same thing: that where ground water contributes to a flooding eventuality it should be in the Bill. I am arguing that that is clearly in the legislation, but for the purposes of putting it beyond any doubt whatsoever, let me go away and have a look at the matter and see if we can do what he asks. I am not averse to that.
As regards the amendment tabled by the hon. Member for Vale of York, if waterlogging is part of flooding, it is included in the Bill and there is no need to have any amendment on it. If the waterlogging is not linked to water on the surface, it is not floodingin other words, it is not included. Just to make it clear: if someone has secondary flooding or basements are being flooded that is part of this definition. However, the simple waterlogging of soil is not part of this definition; it is where it contributes to a flooding event.

Laurence Robertson: I am grateful to the Minister for giving that explanation, which is now clear. Does he not accept that if the water is resting just below the surface it might, for example, be unsuitable to build on that land? The matter is important because there may be a number of planning applications or, indeed, appeals that revert back to this legislation to determine what a flood area is. It is very important that we get this right. Does he acceptI do not think he doesthat water resting just below the surface could constitute flooding? I do not think he accepts that, and that worries me.

Huw Irranca-Davies: No. Water below the surface of itself does not constitute flooding as it is described in the European definitions or the definitions in the Bill. I think I have made it clear that a high water table can itself contribute to a flooding event. That falls within the definition in relation to, for example, flooding of a basement, secondary flooding and things such as that. We will return to the issues surrounding planning later within subsequent amendments and that will be a good debate to have. I have made it clear that I am quite sympathetic to both points that have been raised, but let me take the matter away to consider and see whether we can bring something forward subsequently, because we are aiming to do exactly the same thing.
There is not a necessity to go further in the way that the hon. Lady is suggesting because it would extend the scope of the Bill considerably. However, just to make it clear, in asking the hon. Members for Vale of York, for Upminster, for Cheltenham and for Brecon and Radnorshire not to press their amendments, I am sympathetic to what they are saying. I think we have dealt with the matter already, but I am particularly happy to take away the suggestion by the hon. Member for Cheltenham and have a look at it.

Andrew Turner: I would just push something a little further to see whether we get an agreement. The water below the surface does not emergeobviouslyas long as it remains below the surface. The problem is, once we build on the land, the water does emerge and the area floods. Am I correct in saying that it is not a flood today but it may be a flood tomorrow?

Christopher Chope: That is a speech. The Minister has already sat down.

Martin Horwood: I am pleased by what the Minister said and am grateful that he will go away and look at the issue seriously. The fact that we have ended up debating it in such detail suggests that there is a bit of a problem with the definition. Both amendments, although not addressing identical issues, are on similar territory.
In closing, I would like to press the Minister for a reply on one of the other issues that I raised, relating to amendment 84. Why, in subsection (3), is there a qualification to flooding from a sewerage system
unless wholly or partly caused by an increase in the volume of rainwater
that does not then apply to a burst water main? I take the Ministers point that he thinks the Water Industry Act and other legislation covers the issue but, as the hon. Member for Vale of York rightly said, the whole point of the legislation was that it was supposed to be comprehensive. Water companies are flood risk management authorities, according to the later definition in the Bill, so burst water mains should surely come well within the competence of the Bill. We should be able to have either the exemptions recommended in amendment 84 or the same qualification as in paragraph (b).

Huw Irranca-Davies: As I mentioned before, we exclude sewers in so far as they cause the flood because they may collapse or be blocked and discharge surface foul water as a result of such an eventuality. We add them backthis is pertinent to the discussion we have just hadbecause if the flood from the sewer is not caused by the failure of infrastructure but by the volume of rainwater overwhelming the sewer and contributing to the flood event, we want to include such an eventuality. That is why we do that. However, amendment 84 refers to a burst water main not caused by the flood events and we are trying to exclude that aspect. I am happy to write to the hon. Gentleman and clarify exactly why we have included the one and not the other.

Martin Horwood: I am not quite satisfied with that answer. If the same qualification applies, why is that not in the Bill? Why is the same wording as in paragraph (a) not in paragraph (b)? Why have we done it that way round and not put in the words that the Minister has just used, about the exclusions being from flooding caused by structural failures? A burst water main is, by definition, a structural failure, but the question is what has caused itis it dilapidation or is it, as in the regular case I referred to in my constituency, the usual cause of heavy rainfall, which seems to be excluded from the Bill? At the moment, I am afraid I wish to press amendment 84 to a vote, although I am happy not to press the other amendments.

Anne McIntosh: I am most grateful to the Minister for his full reply. However, although I do not intend to press many amendments to a vote, I would like to persist with my amendment. The reasons are simple. Recommendation 28 of Pitt clearly stated:
The forthcoming flooding legislation should be a single unifying Act that addresses all sources of flooding, clarifies responsibilities and facilitates flood risk management.
In the December progress report on the Governments response to the Pitt review, the Government stated that the definition lies within that part of the progress they wish to fall within the Bill.
My reason for pressing the amendment to a vote, in spite of what the Minister said, is that although I take his point on secondary flooding and the high water table, I think he failed to grasp the point of excluding such damage, particularly to crops. He failed to recognise that any definition of flooding has consequences. Leaving that out of the definition and not supporting the amendment will have serious consequences for farming and the farming community. On that basis, I press the amendment to a vote.

Question put, That the amendment be made.

The Committee divided: Ayes 5, Noes 8.

Question accordingly negatived.

Amendment proposed: 84, in clause 1, page 1, line 14, leave out subsection (3).(Martin Horwood.)

Question put, That the amendment be made.

The Committee divided: Ayes 2, Noes 8.

Question accordingly negatived.

Clause 1 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 2

Risk

Anne McIntosh: I beg to move amendment 132, in clause 2, page 2, line 11, after infrastructure insert (above and below ground).
I wish to make some brief remarks on the amendment and to have a short clause stand part debate. The amendment is meant to help the Minister and the Committee by providing clarity. Notwithstanding the definition of ground water, I believe that the Bill is defective in not referring to infrastructure above and below ground.
The Minister heard the arguments that were put in relation to amendment 131, and the arguments for amendment 132 are similar. I think that the arguments relating to propertydwellings and road or rail infrastructureare well understood. I have a particular concern, as do other hon. Members, regarding saturation of the ground and the effects of waterlogging on crops and farmland.

Martin Horwood: In relation to clause 2 in general, I have two questions about the risk-based approach. It seems to run the risk, if that is the appropriate word, of us moving to a slightly outdated approach to floodingan approach that is not about water management and the management of natural processes, but an approach in which we seek to avoid supposedly strange and extreme events. We are talking about moving to an approach that is not just about erecting defences, but about preventing harm in a more holistic and sustainable way, not least because the whole idea of using probability seems to be getting a little doubtful these days.
My hon. neighbours from Gloucestershire will remember that we were told in June 2007 that we had experienced a once-in-80-years flood eventone with a low chance of recurring. We all looked forward to 79 years of flood-free existence. I know that that is not quite how probability theory works, but it certainly did not work that way for us, because four weeks later we were flooded again with a once-in-100-years flood.
Floods are increasing in frequency andI hope this is not completely bizarrewe are expecting climate change to result in once-in-100-year flood events, of the sort that we experienced recently, happening perhaps once every three years by the end of the century. The definition of probability is clearly becoming rather difficult to manage. Perhaps we should take a fundamentally different approach. Will the Minister comment on the use of probability and risk as the basis for planning?
Amendment 132 seems to be an echo of amendment 131. Although I am sympathetic to it, if the hon. Lady is right that it does not deal with the kind of flooding that I am talking about, I would share the Ministers concern that it may unduly expand the scope of the Bill in an impracticable way, so we probably will not support it.

Huw Irranca-Davies: May I answer in reverse order? It might help if I explained the overall contents of the clause before I turned to the hon. Ladys amendment.

Christopher Chope: Order. I think that the hon. Lady has it in mind to speak separately on clause stand part. It would help if the Minister replied on the amendment.

Huw Irranca-Davies: I shall indeed. Thank you, Mr. Chope.
I turn directly to the amendment. It would extend the definition of infrastructure in clause 2 so that it would state
infrastructure above and below ground.
The clause defines risk, and it lists infrastructure as one of the things that must be considered when assessing risk and the consequences of risk. The definition does not exclude consideration of risk to infrastructure that is underground or partly underground. I wish to avoid introducing anything into the Bill that could increase confusion; for example, we would wish to avoid seeking to quantify the depth that is applicable, as that could vary considerably from case to case.
As I mentioned earlier, the Government acknowledge that sustained saturation of the ground can cause damage even if water does not rise above the surface. It is recognised that the management of ground water levels can contribute to the management of water on the surface. Indeed, the Land Drainage Act 1991 already deals with drainage.
The matter was raised in evidence by Dr. Jean Venables of the Association of Drainage Authorities, someone whom I meet regularly. That body represents internal drainage boards, and Jean is a pre-eminent expert in water level management. Dr. Venables explained that flood damage occurs not only because of water on the surface, but because water within a certain depth of the ground can damage infrastructure, such as roads, railways, properties and foundations. The ADA, the association that Dr. Venables represents, sought assurances that the terminology in the Bill would not affect existing practice. I absolutely and categorically give that assurance, to Members and to all who read of our debate.
I reassure the House that I do not expect existing good practice to be hampered by the Bill. For example, nothing in the Bill should hamper the excellent work done by the internal drainage boards. The Bill is designed to ensure that all forms of flood risk are considered in as joined-up a fashion as possible. The issue is pertinent, but I suggest to the hon. Member for Vale of York that it could be picked up in guidance, alongside consideration of the definition of flooding, as such guidance could cover the matter in more detail. That will ensure that the intended effect is not lost, and that clear advice that it would not be appropriate to include in the legislation is offered to authorities.
Mr. Chope, do you want me to address the issue that the hon. Member for Cheltenham raised about risk?

Christopher Chope: It is kind of the Minister to ask. The hon. Member for Cheltenham put that issue forward in what he thought was a stand part debate, so it would be better if the Minister could reserve his response until we have that debate.

Huw Irranca-Davies: In that case, with those clear reassurances, including on the necessity of looking at the matter in guidance, on which we would consult all peopleCommittee members, the ADA and othersI ask that the hon. Member for Vale of York, who has rightly explored the matter, withdraw the amendment.

Anne McIntosh: I am most grateful to the Minister, especially as I am vice-president of the Association of Drainage Authorities, as I am sure that he is aware. I invite all members of the Committee to come and visit the internal drainage boards in either Yorkshire or East Angliaalthough perhaps not this week or next weekto see the excellent work that they do.
I have one remaining question. The Governmentnot necessarily this Ministerhave a terrible habit of promising to introduce guidance and then doing nothing. Does the Minister care to give us a time frame in which he imagines that the guidance might reach members of the Committee? It would be marvellous if I were allowed to take it home to read tonight.

Huw Irranca-Davies: We anticipate introducing the guidance in the autumn. I know that the autumn is a nebulous term, but it will be in the autumn, and there will be a proper period of consultation.

Anne McIntosh: Whether this Minister or another introduces the guidance, that assurance is very welcome. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

Anne McIntosh: I am most grateful to have the opportunity to consider clause 2 in more depth. Most Bills have, I think, one regulatory impact assessment, but rather confusingly, this Bill seems to have attracted at least sixI have lost count. One in particular relates to clause 2. In clause 2(2) there is the definition:
Flood risk means a risk in respect of flood.
At the moment, I am sure that we would all accept that the strongest risk of flood is the likelihood of flooding as the snow and ice melt. I would like to question the Minister on aspects of costs, and on who might be expected to pick up the costs that flow from the aspect of risk. We are talking in terms of a combination of the probability of the occurrence and its potential consequences. I assume that for insurance and scientific purposes, the Minister is looking particularly at climate change and at what we can learn in that regard.
On page 7 of the regulatory impact assessment relating to the new definition of flood and coastal erosion risk management, we are told that coastal erosion risk and coastal flood risk are closely interrelated, and that there is a strong rationale for considering the two issues together when decisions are taken about the management of flooding and erosion. The information on page 8 of that assessment says that using a valuation methodology promoted by DEFRAs ecosystem approach, which is based on the value of goods and services provided by habitats to human welfare, values for the types of coastal and wetland habitats that might be typically created through flood and erosion management range from £200 to £6,350 per hectare per year, with typical mid-range indicative values of £800 to £2,750.
Those values include carbon storage, pollution control functions, contributions to fisheries and recreational benefits. We are further told that the typical whole-life costs of creating such wetland habitats range from £15,000 to £124,000 per hectare per 1,000 years, but we are told that those benefits might include or be additional to any functional benefit that the habitat provides in reducing flood risk.
I am very taken by the idea of reducing risk, particularly as I believe that we will have only a limited budget for the physical defence structures, and there are currently some funds available for limiting risk from various heads of EU funds. If the risk is to be reduced and wetlands are to be created in that way, will the Minister explain how the costs are to be met? I assume that the costs that I have just read outthe minimum is £200, but they may be more than £6,000will fall to individual farmers and landowners. Those are obviously mind-boggling figures. They are very large sums of money indeed. Where are people meant to find that kind of money?
Clause 2(4) refers to the consequences of flooding for
human health...the social and economic welfare of individuals and communities...infrastructure, and...the environment (including cultural heritage).
Would the Minister expand a little on those, as the explanatory notes do not say a great deal about them? I know that the list is not meant to be exhaustive, but with regard to cultural heritage in particular, what other potential harmful consequences is the Department likely to bear in mind when assessing risk?

Huw Irranca-Davies: I will first deal with the overall approach to risk, which ties together the contributions that have just been made. The clause defines risk as
the combination of the probability of an occurrence with its potential consequences.
It defines flood risk as
a risk in respect of flood,
and coastal erosion risk as
a risk in respect of coastal erosion.
It sets out the harmful consequences to be considered in assessing those risks, but that list, to be clear, is not exhaustive.
The hon. Member for Cheltenham rightly raised the issue of figures such as one in 75 or 80 years, or one in 100 or 200 years, being bandied about; we are seeing that happen again, even post-Cumbria. It is interesting to discuss whether that is the right formula to present to the public. If we say to a member of the public, This is a one-in-100-year eventualitythose are terms that we usethey would rightly say, Well, we now have a few years until it happens again, yet probability, of course, means that such events could happen in a series of years. If we said to someone that the risk that they will be rained on when they go out their door is one in 50, they would take a rain coat with them just in case. We need to find a better way of explaining the risk to the pubic.
I turn now to why we use the risk-based approach, the probability approach and the one in x years terminology. In recent years, most professionals involved in flood and coastal erosion risk management have stopped using the return period terminology that we are talking about. They refer instead to the annual probabilitythe chance of an event happening. Climate change will undoubtedly affect the standard of protection provided by a scheme, and where a probability is quoted, it is generally for the end of the expected lifetime of any scheme, taking account of climate change.
It is worth pointing out that both DEFRA and the Environment Agencythe hon. Member for Vale of York might want to comment on this pointare currently working on updated guidance. They constantly keep that under review to take account of the projections published in the summer. Initial findings show that the existing guidance is broadly accurate, as a representation of likely future change, but we have to keep that under review.
We must consider how we publicly present what the probabilities mean. The list in subsection (4) is not exhaustive or limiting, but it is intended to illustrate the broad range of impacts of flooding that might typically be considered. Further guidance on assessment of risk and appraisal projects will be provided to accompany the national strategies for England and Wales. There will be an opportunity to feed into that revision as we introduce the national strategies.
I want to refer to aspects of cultural heritage. I do not want to be exhaustive because I am not a Minister from the Department of Culture, Media and Sport, but broadly speaking, we see it as referring to examples such as historic sites, which would benefit from improved defences whatever form those defences might take. There might also be recreational benefits.
The impact assessments we carry out on the defences we need and on our responses to flooding and coastal inundation put prices on economic impact and identify the costs to be funded. I am happy to explain the technical detail of how we reach our conclusions.
The hon. Member for Vale of York asked who would meet the costs of flooding. Let me make it clear that the costs will always be met by Government when they are delivered as part of a flood management programme. We have made it clear that we want to see local innovation and input as well. In some of the pilots we have launched over the past six months, we said that we want to see local initiatives and ideas because they can add value to the national approach.

Martin Horwood: The point about the one in x years terminology is that it is not only rather misleadingwe saw an extreme example in Gloucestershire when there was a return not in a year or two but in weeksbut increasingly unreliable, not least because it is based on historical data. When the baseline on which the historical data are calculated is shifting and changing because of climate change, surely there is a need for a different kind of approach.

Huw Irranca-Davies: I would be interested to hear the hon. Gentlemans views on that point, so perhaps he could write to me with any ideas he has. We constantly keep the matter under review, and we also consider what is happening with climate change and what it means for the probability and likelihood of flooding events as well. The current review shows that the broad analysis is correct at the moment, but we must keep the matter constantly under review. There is an opportunity for Committee members and others to have an input in the process as we take it forward to sit alongside the national strategy.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 2 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 3

Risk management

Martin Horwood: I beg to move amendment 3, in clause 3, page 2, line 33, before maintaining insert re-instating.

Christopher Chope: With this it will be convenient to discuss the following: amendment 4, in schedule 2, page 39, line 35, after of, insert re-instating.
Amendment 5, in schedule 2, page 40, line 44, after of, insert re-instating.
Amendment 6, in schedule 2, page 46, line 3, after of, insert re-instating.

Martin Horwood: Amendments 3, 4, 5 and 6 all serve the same purpose and underline an opportunity to improve land and water management at the same time as reducing the risk of flooding. The importance of the word re-instating as opposed to restoring was explained to me by the Woodland Trust. It said that if someone is to restore an historic oil painting, they work on the original, repairing damage. If they are to reinstate an historic oil painting, it implies that the original is lost or destroyed and they need to create a new version that is the equivalent of the lost one. The concepts, therefore, are different.
It would be nice to see the possibility of reinstatement included in the Bill. The best example is woodland recreation, which comes from the Woodland Trust. It points out that woodland is more effective at retaining water than other kinds of landscape, such as grassland, and that it can lead to a 10 to 20 per cent. reduction in flooding. Woodland delays the flow of flood waters downhill to the flood plain and so reduces flooding and harm to properties and structures on the flood plain.
Woodland obviously has other benefits; it prevents soil erosion and can be a source of sustainable biomass. It is therefore a genuinely sustainable energy source. That is an example of how good water management can tie in with good management of the landscape, a positive approach to biodiversity and so on.
Woodland is only one example of things that could be reinstated. I imagine that it would take a long time to reinstate peat bog, but there are other opportunities, such as natural wetlands and river banks. Whole water channels could be reinstated. This is a good opportunity to reinforce the possible ecological credentials of the Bill and to set out the Governments firm intentionI think it was set out in their water strategy, Making Space for Water, and reinforced by the organisation Blueprint for Waterto work with nature and the landscape to seek opportunities to meet other environmental objectives alongside the simple one of reducing flood risk.

David Drew: It is always a delight to serve under your astute chairmanship, Mr. ChopeI hope that in the future we can at least warm up a bit. I want to raise one simple point and I use this group of amendments to take that opportunity. The matter is something about which other colleagues and I have been asking for some time. We are fortunate to have a DEFRA Minister leading on the Bill, as I wish to ask whether we can use the single farm payment more effectively to do the sort of things the hon. Member for Cheltenham has mentioned about landowners having a reasoned approach and being willing to allow their land to flood deliberately or being encouraged to use their land in such a way that we can restore wetlands or develop natural balancing tanks. I am concerned that we are spending all this time on legislation when the real changes we want to see relate to the implications of using existing policies more effectively.
I would like to hear from the Minister on that because, certainly in terms of coastal flooding, there are good examples of single farm payments supporting landowners who face the reality that their land will sometimes be unusable because it will flood. Such an approach protects property or other land that seems to be more valuable. I hope the Minister will say something about that when he sums up and that he will say how the legislation will encourage and catalyse the sort of things that the EFRA Committee has long been arguing for, as he knows. Although it has not just been me who has argued for such things, I was one of the instigators, as he will no doubt remember.

Huw Irranca-Davies: I welcome this debate, because it is important and it gives me the opportunity to put on the record the fact that we consider the cause of reinstatement a valuable contribution of the Bill, and to explain why it can be delivered within the clauses we have at present. We too want the matter to be dealt withlet me be categorical about that.
The hon. Member for Brecon and Radnorshire and his colleague have tabled a series of amendments that affect provisions where the Bill lists things that might be done in the course of flood or coastal erosion risk management. The amendments would affect subsection (3)(b) in clause 3 and paragraphs 24, 29 and 47 of schedule 2. The schedule amends other Acts, which means that the amendments would affect the definition of risk management not only in this Bill, but in the Coast Protection Act 1949, the Land Drainage Act 1991 and the Water Resources Act 1991.
The phrase
maintaining or restoring natural processes
is in the Bill and each of the Acts as an example of a thing that may be done as part of risk management. The amendment would add the word re-instating in each instance, so that the phrase is changed to read, re-instating, maintaining or restoring natural processes. In each instance, the list is intended to provide illustrative examples of things that may be done; it is not an exhaustive catalogue of things that are permitted.
I am happy to agree that re-instating natural processes might usefully be done in the course of managing flood and erosion risk. Let me give one example, because we are not waiting for the Bill to get on with it. Following the Pitt review, a working group was formed, including the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs and Natural England, our principal adviser, to look at shoreline management plans and to ensure that, wherever possible, natural processes were given careful consideration as the way forward. We are already going along these lines, as the hon. Member for Cheltenham knows.
The amendment is not necessary because the Bill, as currently drafted, already allows natural processes to be reinstated, and we would want that to happen where appropriate. Inserting the word re-instating would have no useful direct effect. For all intents and purposes, I can confirm that re-instating is synonymous with restoring. On that basis, I ask the hon. Member for Brecon and Radnorshire not to press the amendment, because the Bill already enables the function that the amendment seeks to be carried out.
Let me turn to a matter that my hon. Friend the Member for Stroud has raised previously in Committee and in debates on the Floor of the House. What we do with a combination of payments to farmers, whether through single farm payments, the uplands changing landscape scheme, or other stewardship schemes, is important because of the contribution that such things can make to wider land management issues, including flood risk management. When walking on top of the Plynlimon hills in Wales, the source of the Wye and the Severn, it is possible to see what can be done up there in terms of allowing the land to be rewettednot with the Woodland Trust in this instance, but with the Wildlife Trust, with which I have been up on those hillsthereby contributing significantly to the management of flood risk further down. Our incentives in respect of uplands stewardship schemes can recognise that, which is important. We seek to do more in that regard, working with farmers and landowners.
We regard reinstating as important and we are moving ahead with it in practice. The word restoring, as used in the Bill, gives the opportunity for reinstating as well. I hope that the hon. Member for Cheltenham will ask leave to withdraw the amendment, which has been useful in allowing us to probe the Governments intention and that of our agencies in interpreting the clause. Reinstatement is important for the way forward.

Martin Horwood: I am grateful for the Ministers remarks and accept them in the spirit in which they are intended. There is slight frustration in Bill Committees because, occasionally, we come across amendments that seem to be well enough drafted and are accepted by all parties but the Government seem incapable of going through the mental process of accepting them, even though it might help and put things beyond doubt if they accepted an Opposition amendment as drafted just once in a while. Doing so would be good for their soul.
Anyway, on this occasion the Minister has been explicit and said that he accepts that reinstatement is within the remit of flood risk management work, as set out in the Bill. I hope that explicit statement is enough and that in future someone making a grant application for a reinstatement scheme is not told by a grant-making body that their scheme does not fall within the scope of the Bill. That would be the practical result of not making such things clear enough. I optimistically hope that will not be so, but look forward to quoting the Ministers remarks in Committee, should that eventuality ever arise.
I am happy not to press the amendment to a vote and I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Martin Horwood: I beg to move amendment 85, in clause 3, page 2, line 37, at end insert
(da) managing the use of land, natural habitats, woodland and other natural landscape features with the result of reducing flood risk or reducing erosion,

To reinforce landscape-scale approach and explicitly include natural landscape management as well as building and defending. Result used not aim as aim should be sustainability/wider environmental objectives.

Christopher Chope: With this it will be convenient to discuss the following: amendment 1, in clause 7, page 5, line 12, leave out objectives and insert
landscape scale objectives, including how the strategy will protect biodiversity, semi-natural habitats and encourage native woodland creation..
Amendment 2, in clause 8, page 6, line 9, leave out objectives and insert
landscape scale objectives, including how the strategy will protect biodiversity, semi-natural habitats and encourage native woodland creation..

Martin Horwood: Amendment 85 would insert into the list of things that can be done in the cause of flood or coastal erosion risk management a more specific approach to managing the natural landscape on a landscape scale. That is on a similar theme to other amendments we have discussed. It would include
managing the use of land, natural habitats, woodland and other natural landscape features with the result of reducing flood risk or reducing erosion.
It is interesting to note the use of the word result rather than aim. The aim in most cases of good land use and the management of natural habitats is not reducing flood risk, but a wider environmental objective such as the increase of biodiversity or the provision of a pleasant landscape in which people can enjoy recreation.
This is another opportunity to reinforce the use of the natural landscape as a means of reducing risk in an holistic and sustainable way. It is not just waterways in the landscape that are seen to have an impact; water passes through the whole landscape. Therefore, land use in general can have an impact. Woodlands are one example and agricultural land is another. Such uses should all be recognised explicitly as contributing to the management of flood risk.
Amendment 1 would do a similar job, but it leaves out the vague terminology of clause 7 and includes
landscape scale objectives, including how the strategy will protect biodiversity, semi-natural habitats and encourage native woodland creation.
There is a slight risk that other environmental objectives of the kind referred to in passing in clause 7(2)(j) are often these days reduced to CO2 emissions and that we think only of climate change. However, it is important to set out other possible environmental objectives. We have tried to expand on that provision to define what such landscape scale objectives might be. They could be to protect biodiversity and semi-natural habitats such as hedgerows and native woodlands, or to encourage native woodland creation.
I am grateful to the Woodland Trust for advising us on the amendment. It pointed out:
Individual tree planting and woodland creation is a crucial component of landscape scale action. In relation to water management these new woods could mitigate flooding whilst contributing to wider environmental objectives. Indeed, the evidence shows that woodland creation alleviates flooding and reduces flood risk whilst conferring a range of other benefits to the environment and landowner. For small floods, woodland has a greater flooding reduction effect than other habitats such as grassland. Modelling also suggests that woodland can mitigate large flood events on floodplains by absorbing and delaying flood flows...
Certain simple amendments to the Flood and Water Management Bill could help ensure that landscape scale opportunities are scoped and implemented in the future. The Flood and Coastal Erosion Risk Management strategies could encourage governmentnational, regional and localand its agencies to investigate the opportunities for landscape scale actions such as native woodland creation and the protection of semi-natural habitats.
The use of the phrase landscape scale is significant because much of what comes under the Bill, particularly the provisions on local flood risk management strategies, is reduced to local authority areas. Some existing planning law, such as PPS25 with which the hon. Member for Tewkesbury and others will be familiar, narrows down the consideration even further to individual sites. That makes it difficult to look at the landscape as a whole and at the opportunities for managing water in it. One of our objectives in discussing the Bill is to try to broaden its scope at planning level to look at the whole landscape and the way in which it treats water. This is an important amendment and I would like to hear the Ministers response to it. Amendment 2 was tabled on exactly the same basis and does the same thing to clause 8, which refers to Wales.

Huw Irranca-Davies: I do not automatically resist all amendments; I hope that I will show that as the Committee progresses. I will listen to all hon. Members, and we will explore where I think there is a good legislative opportunity. Let me also turn that on its head and say that, sometimes, I will try to explain why legislation may not be necessary. I am a pragmatic and sometimes reluctant legislator. If we can clearly address issues within the legislation available, maybe the hon. Gentleman will agree with me.
May I pay tribute to the hon. Members for Cheltenham and for Brecon and Radnorshire and to the Woodland Trust for inspiring debate on this important issue? The amendments are interesting and would strongly direct the national strategy towards emphasising the protection of biodiversity, the saving of natural habitats and the creation of native woodland. I acknowledge that there are strong links and, in some cases, critical dependencies between the way in which we manage flood and erosion risk and the state of some aspects of the natural environment. That is absolutely clear. Indeed, flood and coastal erosion risk management has had, and continues to have, a profound impact on the biological and geological diversity of coastal, river and wetland environments. I also acknowledge that the creation and protection of semi-natural habitats and woodlands can have clear flood management benefits. In that respect, I have a great deal of sympathy with what the hon. Member for Cheltenham seeks to achieve with the amendments. I will, however, explain why it is not necessary to accept them.
The aspects of the natural environment that the amendments focus on are not the whole picture. In fact, there could be more. Clause 3(3) lists
examples of things that might be done in the course of flood...management.
It is therefore an illustrative list of examples. It is not meant to be an exhaustive catalogue of things that are permitted. Furthermore, if I accepted the amendments, there could be unnecessary duplication with maintaining or restoring natural processes, which is already on the list in clause 3(3)(b).

Martin Horwood: The distinction is between a process and a feature. Land use and the management of natural landscape features are not necessarily the same as managing a process.

Huw Irranca-Davies: Indeed, I understand the distinction, but let me explain further. The hon. Gentleman touched on the desirability of working at landscape scales as well as simply building defences, and on the need to contribute to sustainability and environmental objectives; we fully agree. However, the need to contribute to sustainability through flood and erosion risk management functions is already covered by clause 27, which centres on sustainable development. For the record, clause 27(1) notes that
an authority listed in subsection (3) must aim to make a contribution towards the achievement of sustainable development.
Moreover, section 4 of the Environment Act 1995, centring on the aims and objectives of the Environment Agency, also covers the issue.
Such matters, and the desirability of using natural habitats and landscape features, will be better reinforced by the guidance that will result from the Bill rather than by their inclusion in the Bill itself. It already has them bolted down, but we also need to introduce the guidance, which will provide an opportunity to flesh out, much more than the hon. Gentlemans amendment would, the sort of possibilities that we envisage. For example, I would expect objectives for water quality and the historic environment, including creation of woodland. One of the best days that I had last summer, going into the autumn, was with the Woodland Trust, looking at and searching for ancient trees with its volunteersthat is part of our cultural and historic environment as well. I would expect such things to be given due consideration in the national strategy.
Furthermore, while I would expect the strategy to address what contribution flood and erosion risk management might make to creating and restoring natural habitats where appropriate, I would not want to single out native woodland over and above, say, wetlands or coastal habitats, which might even have a more direct connection in certain areas with how flooding and erosion is managed. We need to think wider, which is where the guidance gives us the opportunity. Through the guidance wethe loyal rather than the royal we, including the Committeecan be more specific in steering the types of contributions that the flood and erosion risk management strategy might make to achieving wider environmental objectives. I suspect that is what hon. Members are trying to tease out and what the Woodland Trust is trying to get at.
There are bound to be strong links between the management of flood and erosion risk and environmental objectives for the foreseeable future. However, we cannot foresee all details or all priorities, so it is better to keep the requirement on the face of the Bill to specify how the strategy should contribute to the achievement of the wider environmental objectives without specifying here and now what could be a narrower set of objectives. I have expressed my great sympathy with the objectives of the proposers of the amendment and illustrated how we can deal with such objectives. For all those reasons I ask the hon. Gentleman to withdraw the amendment.

Martin Horwood: I must admit that I am not entirely sure I follow the ministerial logic. If the list is explicitly not exhaustive, as he stressed, I do not see how adding to it can limit itthat may be a logical discussion to be had elsewhere.
I accept from the Ministers remarks, which were positive about landscape scale objectives and the management of natural features as well as processes, that the Governments heart seems to be in the right place. I slightly regret that they do not feel able to make that explicit in the Bill, but perhaps we shall have to return to the specific definition of sustainable development to which he referred. The Sustainable Development Commission has at times been rather frustrated with the way in which the objectives of sustainable development have been mangled by various DepartmentsI am sure his is not one of them. Given the good intentions expressed, I am content to beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Anne McIntosh: I beg to move amendment 7, in clause 3, page 3, line 2, after information, insert to all interested parties.

Christopher Chope: With this it will be convenient to discuss the following: amendment 91, in clause 7, page 5, line 3, at end insert
(ea) how the strategy and risk management functions are to be communicated with a view to providing a single communication route for all members of the public concerned about flooding,.
New clause 14No automatic connection to waste water pipes for major new developments
(1) There shall be no connection to waste water pipes or drains granted until
(a) water companies have been consulted on the capacity of the existing system to manage the extra demands from new properties;
(b) water companies have conducted a detailed assessment of the likely extra demand and the capacity of the existing system to handle it;
(c) financial responsibility for building the extra infrastructure has been apportioned, and
(d) formal planning permission has been given..
New clause 15Water companies to be statutory consultees
(1) The relevant planning authority for all major new developments must consult equally
(a) water companies and
(b) the Environment Agency.
(2) The consultations must
(a) be in accordance with PPS 25;
(b) establish the impact of the proposed new development on the local drainage system, and
(c) inform the planning application process..
New clause 22Planning permission and connection to the sewerage system
(1) The Town and Country Planning Act 1990 is amended as follows.
(2) After section 70B of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 insert
70C Prior to granting planning permission under section 70(1), a local planning authority must consult the relevant sewerage undertaker in relation to the proposed location of any connection to the sewerage system..
(3) sewerage system shall have the same meaning as in section 94 of the Water Industry Act 1991..

Anne McIntosh: I would like to make some general points about the clause in a small stand part debate, so I shall limit my remarks to amendment 7.
The Pitt recommendations were clear. In recommendation 16 he called on local authorities to
collate and map the main flood risk management and drainage assets (over and underground), including a record of their ownership and condition,
while recommendation 17 was:
All relevant organisations should have a duty to share information and cooperate with local authorities and the Environment Agency to facilitate the management of flood risk.
Recommendation 90 specified:
All upper tier local authorities should establish Oversight and Scrutiny Committees to review work by public sector bodies and essential service providers in order to manage flood risk, underpinned by a legal requirement to cooperate and share information.
The purpose of amendment 7 is to specify especially when items of information, in particular the mapping, have been prepared, that under the duty set out in terms of examples in clause 3(3)(i) to prepare, gather and disseminate
maps, plans, surveys and other information,
that information is indeed shared.
Some points about this have been made on the Floor of the House, but they might have escaped the Ministers attention, because it is always said that if someone wants to keep a secret, it should be said on the Floor of the House as it will not go any further. However, I want to explore to what intent and purposes the mapping by Ordnance Survey will be made widely available and how the information will be posted. The most advanced mapping is undertaken by the Environment Agency and the Met Office. A certain amount of mapping of properties is done by districts. The mapping of highways is done by county councils. Unitaries undertake both, while a certain amount of modelling and mapping is done by insurance companies. The idea of inserting in the clause the phrase to all interested parties is to emphasise the point that, for example, when the National Flood Forum holds meetings after flood events, it does not always invite insurance companies along. That just seems plain daft. If all the interested parties are to be brought together, all the relevant ones should be there and obviously insurance companies have a role to play.
We have raised the issue of confidentiality elsewhere, and it goes without saying that the information that we believe should be shared must respect that confidentiality. However, when the information and mapping has been gleaned by public funded bodies such as the Environment Agency, the Met Office, Ordnance Survey and, to a certain extent, districts and counties, we want to know why it is currently not being shared and what measures under clause 3(3)(i) the Minister is proposing to take to ensure that it will indeed be shared.
As for recommendation 90, we were told in the December progress report that it is covered by the Bill. The Minister would help me enormously if he told me where such information was located.
To sum up, the purpose of the modest amendment is to press the Minister on what measures he intends to take to make sure that all the maps, plans, surveys and other information are reaching the right people.

Martin Horwood: I am grateful to the hon. Member for Vale of York for explaining her amendment, because until she did so just now, my main criticism was that it seemed a wee bit vague. I was not quite clear who the interested parties were or how information was to be disseminated to them. I imagined lawyers or all sorts of people who claimed to be interested parties having a field day with the amendment, if it were accepted, by saying that they had not been consulted.
However, the hon. Lady has raised an important issue that gets to the heart of some of the measures that relate to insurance and information that we might be discussing later in our proceedings. I understand that already in existence are inundation maps that reveal the risk of surface water flooding as well as the more common river flooding maps. They are not at the moment shared with the general public or insurance companies, but with more professional consultees such as local authority finance departments.
A potential threat is posed by revealing some information. Not everyone wants to hear the information that their house faces a flood risk, as that would pose a threat to their house price, their insurance premiums and the excesses they are charged. It would create other issues relating to insurance and might even threaten the resale of the house. However, it would be wrong for that information to be disseminated to insurance companies, for instance, while their policyholders could not get hold of it. The hon. Ladys amendment raises a critical issue, and I will be interested to hear the Ministers reply before passing judgment on it.

Huw Irranca-Davies: The amendment is useful as it teases out such issues, and I thank the hon. Member for Vale of York for tabling it. The amendment would add to all interested parties after
preparing, gathering and disseminating maps, plans, surveys and other information
in the list of examples of things that might be done under clause 3. Amendment 91 would require the national flood and coastal erosion management strategy in England to specify a single communication about flooding for all members of the public.
Although amendment 7 emphasises the need to disseminate information to interested parties, it is not critical to ensuring that that happens. The list to which the amendment applies is an example of what might be done in the course of flood and coastal erosion risk management. The clause does not need refining in that way to ensure that interested parties receive information. Best practice on engagement with stakeholders and consultation will be addressed better through the national strategy or the accompanying guidance, which will contain great scope to explore and explain fully what is required in respect of disseminated information.
Furthermore, a body that prepares and gathers maps, plans, surveys or other information and does not at least disseminate it to interested partieswho vary from situation to situation, as the hon. Member for Cheltenham saidwill be at risk of challenge for failing to act reasonably in discharging its functions. That will also encourage bodies to do the right thing in terms of disseminating information. There are drivers for ensuring that the information is properly disseminated.
The provision as drafted does not suggest any limitation to the dissemination of information; a body may go further. If appropriate, bearing in mind what the hon. Gentleman said, it could make that information available generally and not just to the interested parties specified. Amendment 7 could cast doubt on that by suggesting some limitation. There is no limitation in the Bill as drafted. If it is felt that maps or information are useful and could be distributed more widely, there is no reason why they should not be. The Bill will allow that to happen.
Amendment 91 would require the national flood and coastal erosion management strategy in England to specify a single communication route for all members of the public concerned about flooding. To deal with one aspect of that suggestion, the Government and the Environment Agency are working to ensure that the national Floodline, of which hon. Members will be aware, becomes the single point of contact for members of the public concerned about flooding. Another aspect is that the Environment Agency now routinely provides information, including flood maps, on its website. We are starting to do that work already, so there is no need to legislate for it. It is already in train as a result of the Pitt review, which can be fleshed out in both national strategy and guidance.
To answer the question understandably asked by the hon. Member for Vale of York, our recent Pitt update showed the progress being made on aspects 90 and 91. Aspect 90 says:
All upper tier local authorities should establish Overview and Scrutiny Committees to review work by public sector bodies and essential service providers in order to manage flood risk.
It was highlighted that that would be covered in the Bill. I refer the hon. Lady and Committee members to paragraph 54 of schedule 2, which gives provision to do so. It is within the Bill, and we are taking it forward.
Another aspect, in terms of data, is that we have a pan-Government agreementa PGA. It provides Government bodies such as the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, the Environment Agency, Natural England and so on with access to core mapping data from a number of suppliers, including Ordnance Survey. The PGA is managed on behalf of the Government by the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government.
The hon. Lady has tabled a good, intelligent amendment to allow her to probe for such information. We can do a lot more in guidance and in the strategy, and work is already under way, but we do not want to limit what can be done. A future Minister might say to the Environment Agency or others, Why not make that great information available to everyone? As the Bill is currently drafted, we can do so.

Anne McIntosh: Will the Minister elaborate on why information from Ordnance Survey is so freely in the public domain, but not that from the Environment Agency or the Met Office?

Huw Irranca-Davies: The hon. Lady makes a good point. I think that we can do more. Certainly the Secretary of State and I have had discussions on increasing the intelligence and quality of the data.
The hon. Member for Cheltenham made the observation thatalthough not due to reluctance on the part of the Governmentit is not always appropriate to swamp everyone with every piece of information. The right piece of information needs to be put in the right place so that it is understandable and usable. There is further scope for that, and the Bill as drafted will allow us to do more. On that basis, I ask the hon. Member for Vale of York to withdraw the amendment.

Martin Horwood: I neglected to refer to amendment 91 earlier, so I shall speak to it briefly. It underlines a point made by the National Flood Forum. It is important that the public should have a single point of contact for flooding. I detect from the Ministers remarks that he expects the national Floodline to be that contact point. That would be reassuring.
Will the Minister assure us that the sort of examples that I gave in my opening remarks will not occur when phoning the national Floodlinethat there will be no categories of flooding for which people will be told that it is the wrong kind of water or the wrong sort of flood, or that it is ground water more than a certain number of millimetres below ground level? Will he confirm that the national Floodline is intended to be a comprehensive service designed to provide a single point of contact that can be important for those who find themselves in a situation of real distress and confusion? It is important that they are given clear, straightforward, simple answers to their questions.

Huw Irranca-Davies: Indeed. The important point is to whom the hon. Gentlemans constituents should speak if their house is flooded, no matter what causes it. The Environment Agency provides a national Floodline, but we are planning to enhance the service in order to provide a one-stop shop. Through it, home owners and businesses will be provided with information on all forms of flooding that are relevant to their location.
We will also be providing for local authorities to investigate flooding incidentsin the past it has not always been clear who is responsiblefor the publication of information and for the compilation of a register of flood and coastal erosion risk management assets to ensure that there is clarity of responsibility. That should mean that local authorities can also deal with queries from local residents. We see the national Floodline as a one-stop shop.

Anne McIntosh: The Ordnance Survey, like the Met Office, might fall under a different Department. However, in a spirit of co-operation, and because we can return to some of these matters later, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

Christopher Chope: With this it will be convenient to discuss the following: new clause 7Definition of high flood risk
(1) The Secretary of State must ensure by regulations that local development frameworks must develop a definition of an area as being high flood risk.
(2) The Secretary of State must consult all interested bodies as the Secretary of State may determine..
New clause 8Definition of high flood risk (No. 2)
(1) The Town and Country Planning Act 1990 is amended as follows.
(2) In section 70, after (b) insert
(c) For all applications within high flood risk areas, the local planning authority may cite high flood risk as grounds for refusal..

This is to ensure that the Secretary of State sets up regulations to ensure the local development frameworks define certain areas as high flood risk, with amendment to the Town and Country Planning Act to ensure it is applied.
New clause 25Flood risk areas
(1) The Environment Agency shall carry out an assessment of the whole of England and Wales to determine which areas of land are at risk from flooding, and it shall determine these as being flood risk areas.
(2) For the purposes of this section, an area of land shall be designated as a flood risk area if
(a) there is evidence of it having flooded in the past;
(b) for the purposes of paragraph (a), an area shall be deemed to have flooded if water has rested on the surface of the land, or just below the surface;
(c) the local planning authority, or the Environment Agency after consultation with the local planning authority, are of the opinion that building on a section of land would be likely to increase the risk of other pieces of land flooding as a result of water displacement; or
(d) having consulted with the local planning authority, the Environment Agency reasonably believes that the area might be subject to flooding in the future.
(3) If an area of land is designated as flood risk, the Environment Agency shall submit a formal objection to any medium or large-scale planning application which is proposed for that land.
(4) For the purposes of subsection (3), a planning application shall be designated as being medium or large-scale if it involves the building of more than 10 houses, or if it involves the building of a public, commercial or industrial unit covering larger than half an acre in land area..

Laurence Robertson: New clause 25 basically requires the Environment Agency to submit a formal objection to any large or medium scale planning application that is proposed for land designated as being a flood risk. I also want to define medium and large scale, which could mean the building of more than 10 houses or the building of a public commercial industrial unit covering an area larger than half an acre. Just as importantly, I should like to discuss what flood risk means.
We have had considerable debate on that already this morning, when we tried to define what flood meant, although I do not think that we reached any satisfactory conclusion, and we discussed what risk means and what risk management means. I shall try to go a little bit further in my amendment. An area should be designated as being a flood risk if there is evidence of its having flooded in the past, meaning that water has rested on the surface of the land or just below its surfaceI do not intend to go over the arguments that were made beforeor if the Environment Agency, in consultation with the local planning authority, has reason to believe that the area might be subjected to flooding in future, or if the local planning authority or the Environment Agency are of the opinion that building on a section of land would be likely to increase the risk of other pieces of land flooding as a result of water displacement. That is an important point.
The new clause goes to the heart of what we are doing here todayand this week and next weekwhich is to protect houses, businesses and public services from flooding. Some of my remarks may stray into what might be considered to be responsibilities of the Department for Communities and Local Government, which is inevitable when we discuss such a Bill.
I am particularly concerned because we often hear that flood-risk areas are protected by PPS25. I do not accept that argument, having looked at it, studied it and seen how it works. Yes, it says that building should not take place in flood-risk areas, but it qualifies that considerably and allows building to take place in flood-risk areas using the exceptional tests. It is a matter of opinion what amounts to an exceptional test or, indeed, an exception.
Against that background, I want to talk a little bit about what I am really concerned about, which I mentioned briefly earlier: the regional spatial strategy for the south-west, which is not finalised yet. We have had 35,000 representations on that strategy: I think that you will be familiar with some of those, Mr. Chope. In my constituency alone, that strategy proposes to increase housing by about 40 per cent., as I mentioned earlier, adding another 14,500 or so houses to the stock of roughly 40,000 houses in my area. I could talk about why I feel that those projections are flawed, but you may pull me up if I go too far down that road, Mr. Chope. For example, the projections are based on growth forecasts, although it is difficult to predict what the growth in the economy will be this year, never mind over the next 16 years, and it assumes that building should take place in principal urban areas rather than scattering it around to villages that might want some housing. Any projections of that nature are flawed. I also object to its being drawn up regionally, rather than democratically and locally. There are many objections to the RSS system and the way in which it is put together. In essence, I am concerned because where on earth are we going to find the space for those houses in an area that is obviously and clearly a flood-risk area? Should we have to find that many houses? Surely, we should be sensitive about what happened in 2007.
The hon. Member for Cheltenham is correct to mention not only July 2007, but June 2007, which leads me to a good example of flooding that he will be familiar with. In June 2007, which was, just to remind Committee members, a month before the big flood, I visited some houses in Prestbury, close to Prestbury Park race course, which is often referred to as Cheltenham race course although it is in my constituency not the hon. Gentlemansand long may that be so. The residents told me that they had lived there for 40 years and had never known there to be a flood. I found that curious, but then I started to think about it and analyse it and realised that two things had happened that couldI do not know for surehave contributed to the flood. One was that something like 150 houses had been built further up the hill just above Prestbury, at a place called Noverton lane. That was a controversial development, on what were previously green fields that could soak up the water. There was some concern about whether the run-off from the houses would send the water down the hill into Prestbury, and that it would be called a flood. I shall perhaps not go too far into this here because I am sure that we will come back to it: two culverts were placed in Prestbury some years ago but not joined up. Why on earth not, I do not know, but that obviously worsened the flooding, and one of the culverts had been damaged and not repaired, which made it even worse. That relates slightly to a separate amendment, but the fact that the houses were built on the top of that hill must have contributed to Prestburys flooding, even though the new development supposedly had new drainage systems that would take care of the run-off. In that case they did not.
That was in June 2007; those very same people were flooded again in July 2007. The hon. Gentleman talked about the perhaps inappropriate use these days of the concept of probability of flood risk. Those people might have been told, This is a one-in-250-years flood; it was two in one month. I do not think that we can continue to use that concept, that we can say that July 2007 was a one-in-250-years or a one-in-1,000-years event. We have not been measuring flooding for that long. Also, every single day of our lives we are rightly told about the dangers from climate change and about how global warming will cause the weather to be very different, unpredictable and more extreme. I understand that, and the evidence is that that will be the case. However, we cannot use that argument one minute and the next say that this is a one-in-100-years or a one-in-5,000-years flood. We cannot put both those arguments forward at the same time. My point is that we have to take the weather conditions over the past few years very seriously, and not simply write them off and say that it is very unlikely that they will happen again. It happened again this year, not in my area but up in the north-west, where we saw some terrible flood damage. Again, I read on the front of The Times that that was a one-in-1,000-years rainfall. Has rainfall been studied for the past 1,000 years? I doubt it. Can the next 1,000 years be predicted? I doubt it. That simply is not the way to address the problem. We have to be very careful about where we build houses.
During the 2007 flooding, there was a development up Bredon road, which is just going out of Tewkesbury. Houses that were being built at that time flooded. Shortly afterwards there was another application from a developer to build even more houses up that road. It is absolutely unbelievable that anyone should want to do that, with total disregard for the people living there, and for anybody who was likely to be flooded as a result of taking up green fields. I want to stress how important the theory of water displacement is. My concern is not only about whether the new houses will flood, although that is an important consideration, partly because of the difficulty there would be in getting insuranceon Second Reading and in the evidence session last week, we heard some examples of how that has become very difficultit is about the damage that they will cause to nearby houses. I spoke earlier about how building in a place called Longford in my constituency will make the flood problem worse for other people as well. That is the case in many different areas in my constituency. Only yesterday I had a call from a developer who wants to build on green fields that were identified by the regional spatial strategy. They got terribly upset because I was quoted in the local newspaper as saying that the land floods, and that building on the land would cause other houses to flood. Let them be upset; it is a fact. People have seen water on the land and nearby houses flood, and for that reason it would be very inappropriate to build in those areas.
In many cases, the Environment Agency does not object sufficiently strongly or as often as it should. When we were discussing floodwater on or just below the surface, I gave an example of when the agency said to me that it had not objected to a particular planning application because the water was below the surface. However, it should have objected to that application because if it goes ahead it will cause more problems.
Sometimesit is only a fairly small number of cases percentage wise but the impact is importantthe advice of the EA is ignored. The new clause cannot go as far as to correct that because it would be beyond the scope of the Bill, but the EA should carry out an assessment throughout England and Wales to determine which areas of land will flood. Although it can be assisted by local authorities, the job is not as big as it might appear. The EA should designate certain areas as flood risks if they qualify under the items that I have listed. Then it should submit a formal objection through planning applications. I understand that that may not prevent some applications from going ahead, but it will give a very serious message to developers. Quite often, such matters are determined on appeal. If the Environment Agency is objecting and sending in an objection to the planning inspectors it should carry some weight.
I accept that my new clause will not necessarily stop all inappropriate development and that it is difficult to define flood risk, as we saw in an earlier debate. It is difficult to frame in legislation what should really be common sense. People who live in such areas, who are flooded and who have visited those who are flooded know whether building should take place in those areas. It is difficult to write it down. I have spent far longer framing this new clause than I have spent speaking on it, but that is probably the nature of this kind of thing.
Will the Minister treat this new clause seriously and sympathetically because it is a very important matter for the people in my constituency? The Secretary of State was extremely helpful at the time of the floods. I have heard him say of London, We are in a flood-risk area here, and yet we still have to have building. I do not think that the analogy is accurate or useful. It is very different in the area in which I live.
The Minister earlier touched on the water table. He said that it was very high and that it did not take a huge amount of rainfall to cause further flooding. Much of my constituency is underwater several times a year to the extent that sometimes we do not even notice it. Such is the danger that one can drive past flooded fields without even noticing. My concern is that if we continue to build on green fields that would otherwise soak up water it will cause a great many more problems for the people who not only buy those houses but already live there.
We suffered terribly in the floods of 2007. It was an absolute nightmare. People were out of their houses for more than a year. Men, women, children, the ill and the elderly had to live in caravans over Christmas and through the winter. It was a terrible situation.
We understand in Tewkesburywe live where two rivers, the Avon and the Severn, come togetherthat things will be difficult and that we will have floods now and again, but we are saying, Lets not make it worse unnecessarily. That is the spirit behind the new clause. Thank you.

Martin Horwood: I am pleased to be following my neighbour the hon. Member for Tewkesbury on this subject. I do not have designs on many parts of his constituency, but the gentle slopes of Prestbury Park is one part that I might covet. I point out to him that the race course is officially known as Cheltenham race course.
With new clause 25, the hon. Gentleman raises an important issue that we have addressed in new clauses 7 and 8. I regard the matter as so important that should new clauses 7 and 8 falland I will press them to a voteI will happily support new clause 25 as an alternative, although it addresses the issue in a slightly different way. It tries to define high flood risk, whereas new clause 7 commands the Secretary of State to produce the definition. Either way, we need that definition, because Sir Michael Pitt rightly concluded in his report:
Development control is a central part of the process of managing flood risk, by avoiding development in risk areas where possible and, where such building does take place, by ensuring that risk is reduced both to the development itself and for those living nearby. Planners and developers must pay proper regard to the risks, as should those purchasing properties. We believe that the latest Government guidancePPS25should deliver this, and that it should be strengthened if it does not.
The practical experience, to which the hon. Member for Tewkesbury referred, and which is also my experience, is that PPS25 is simply not up to the job. Recommendation 7 of the Pitt report is:
There should be a presumption against building in high flood risk areas, in accordance with PPS25, including giving consideration to all sources of flood risk, and ensuring that developers make a full contribution to the costs both of building and maintaining any necessary defences.
That is simply not happening. Given that PPS25 is failing, we need to introduce the presumption against building in high flood risk areas into the Bill by other means. New clauses 7 and 8 are designed to do that.
New clause 7 is designed to provide for the way in which high flood risk areas are defined, to include not simply areas at risk from river flooding, as currently defined by the Environment Agency and its maps, but those at risk from the various forms of flooding that we have already discussed, including ground water and, most importantly, surface water flooding, which was responsible for a great deal of the property flooding in my constituency in 2007.
I shall give a precise example, which neatly illustrates why PPS25 fails so completely. First, PPS25 is far too site-specific, in that it narrows the consideration down to whether net surface run-off and other considerations are being addressed on the specific site of a particular planning application. It does not look at the landscape as a whole or allow for the consideration of flooding being exacerbated elsewhere, especially in an extreme flood event, and it certainly does not do what Sir Michael Pitt asked, which is ensure
that developers make a full contribution to the costs both of building and maintaining any necessary defences.
I gave an example on Second Reading of a neighbourhoodwhich is partly in my constituency but, at the moment, most of it is in the hon. Member for Tewkesburys constituencycalled Warden Hill. It is downhill of another neighbourhood called Leckhampton, which, again, straddles the constituency boundary between our two seats. There was recently an exercise to examine flood risk in that area and to look at how the 40 or 50 properties that flooded in Warden Hill in 2007 could be protected. Consultants for Cheltenham borough council did a detailed analysis of the whole landscape. They went beyond Warden Hill and looked at Leckhamption, and produced some interesting maps designed to inform possible flood defence options.
Those maps showed an area of Leckhampton that currently consists of green fields and was flooded in 2007. A map was produced with a large area of blue blocked out to show all the places that were inundated. That is exactly the area on which the RSS, to which the hon. Member for Tewkesbury referred, is planning to put 1,300 houses. That is an area, which planning inspectors, who informed what are technically the Secretary of States proposed modifications to the RSS, spent roughly five to 10 minutes examining, before concluding that it was an appropriate area for development.
As a result, we have had a succession of planning applications to build on that space, and they were live when the consultants were looking at flood risks. Consequently, the consultants took those applications into consideration and, fearing that that development might actually go ahead, chose a flood defence option that did not use the landscape, the natural features or the natural holding ability of the green fields at Leckhampton, but focused entirely on hard defences in Warden Hill.
So we will now have some £700,000 worth of flood defence work in Warden Hill. In itself, that work is very welcome, but it will be more expensive than the option that should have been pursued, which would have used landscape features. In fact, the overall cost of the work over time will be hundreds of thousands of pounds more than the option that was explored but not chosen, because it was thought that it would prompt opposition from developers in the area uphill.
The problem is that PPS25 is completely useless in this situation. First, regarding the planning applications that have already been submitted for this green field area, there have been debates about PPS25 and about Environment Agency objections to the development taking place. Those objections have almost always been withdrawn. When I recently asked Environment Agency staff why they were withdrawn, one explanation that they gave was that, once again, it was the wrong kind of water and that actually this was not main river flooding, but generally surface water and inundation of the fields. Therefore, this area was not one of those about which, under PPS25, the Environment Agency was supposed to be giving advice. I must say that, from my reading of PPS25, I was a little surprised by that and there is certainly some confusion here. That led to the Environment Agencys withdrawing its objection to developments and once it has withdrawn its objection, it is virtually impossible for local campaigners or local authority planners to maintain that there is a flooding risk to the satisfaction of planning inspectors, even though, as we have seen, there is now documentary evidence that there is a flood risk in this area.
So the chances are that, one day, one of those planning applications might succeed. We hope that we will defeat the RSS before that happens and that we can consign the whole glorious thing to the dustbin. Clearly, however, in terms of flood policy, the system is not working at the moment.
Of course, when that extra cost was placed on general taxpayers, because the money will ultimately come from the Environment Agency, there was no suggestion that the developers whose planning applications had caused the increase in priceby moving the defence work to hard defences in Warden Hillwould bear any of that extra cost. Therefore, Sir Michael Pitts recommendation that we should ensure that developers make a full contribution to the costs of any necessary defence has failed in this example, too.
PPS25 is not working, and we need to be quite explicit that areas with a high flood risk can be identified and that, as set out in new clause 8, local authorities have an explicit power of citing high flood risk as a reason for refusing planning permission.
Sir Michael Pitt decided, probably quite rightly, against a blanket ban on building on the flood plain. In any case, such a ban would not address surface water flooding and would probably be too draconian. Nevertheless, we need to give local authorities a clear and unambiguous power to refuse development and stop processes such as the RSS, should they ever appear again, from imposing development, which would make the flood risk worse, on areas that they have identified as high flood risk areas, according to whatever system or definition we agree.
We have known about this problem for years. The Foresight study, which I think was as far back as 2004, certainly identified creeping urbanisation as a major contributor to flood risk and it is time that we tackled that issue and sorted it out. I am afraid that Sir Michael Pitt was too optimistic, perhaps too naive, in hoping that PPS25 was up to the job. It certainly is not.

Laurence Robertson: The hon. Gentleman mentioned Sir Michael Pitts report. I think that he was at the meeting that I attended when Sir Michael Pitt admitted, and I paraphrase, that the Governments 3 million house target had compromised his ability to rule out building in flood risk areas. I paraphrase, but that is very much what Sir Michael Pitt said at quite a large meeting, which I think the hon. Gentleman attended.

Martin Horwood: The hon. Gentleman may well be right. Certainly, that is an area of policy on which, for all the fine words that emanate from the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs on wider environmental objectives, we find that other Departments, specifically the Department for Communities and Local Government, seem to go in precisely the opposite direction and pursue their plans pretty well regardless of the environmental consequences locally in many cases.
Giving local authorities the power to say no to inappropriate development which they know, which they can prove, and which consultants have told them, will increase flood risk is crucial. It is crucial for our constituents and people throughout the country. If we do not address the issue, we could end up in a situation whereby new housing estates are built in such areas. The Association of British Insurers, whose tolerance is enormous but not infinite, will eventually say, Frankly, if the Government had the opportunity to stop those kinds of developments but refused to take action or to address inappropriate development in flood risk areas, why should our members insure those kinds of houses?
We will be in a situation whereby we have built whole housing estates that are absolutely uninsurable, which will, therefore, become very low quality housing in the end. The price will fall and they will potentially become neglected. We will be in a terrible situation of urban blight in those areas, not to mention the fact that they will, of course, almost inevitably flood at some stage. They, too, will suffer along with the people downhill of places where flooding has been exacerbated.
We have to tackle the issue. I hope that new clauses 7 and 8 will do that. As I said, I will press them to a vote. Should they fall, however, I would happily support new clause 25 as a very constructive alternative.

David Drew: Given that my two colleagues have spoken, I do not see why I cannot have a go. Such is the wide wording of new clause 25, tabled by the hon. Member for Tewkesbury, that I feel I can make a couple of points in response to what both hon. Members said, but I would also like to address a particular problem.
The reality in Gloucestershire is that those of us who live in the vale have come to expect to be the major providers of land for new housing, and, indeed, new employment. Historically, that has always happened. Looking at the balance in the countys provision, it is increasingly the case. It may be seen as inevitable, given the nature of the evolution of the geography, geology and riverine system of the Severn vale, but it leads to several specific problems.
First, the River Severn is mercurial. We live in the Severn vale because at various times the river has moved its course quite dramatically. It will continue to do so. That causes me some difficulty, because my main point is about not just where we decide to build, but the consequences for other parts of the Severn vale. That is often ignored, which is why new clause 25 is quite cleverly worded: it looks at the consequences of that new development. One of our problems is that, even if we chose

The Chairman adjourned the Committee without Question put (Standing Order No. 88).

Adjourned till this day at Four oclock.